Rosie Winterton: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly committed to working in close collaboration with the local authorities to look at all the possible funding options. As I said, when the meeting on Monday has taken place, we should sit down and look at the various proposals. I understand her point about toll roads. I hope that we will be able to take this matter forward. As I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware, the cost of the scheme has escalated—looking at some of the funding options—up to £1 billion. We have to recognise that we need to explore the different options very closely.

John Healey: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on local and regional economic reform in England. The Government are today publishing the conclusions of the review of sub-national economic development and regeneration, launched in the 2006 Budget as groundwork for this year's comprehensive spending review. In this report, we set out the compelling case for reform to give local authorities and communities greater responsibility and opportunity to boost economic growth in their area; to bring consultation and planning for jobs, homes, investment and the environment closer together at both local and regional levels; and to strengthen public scrutiny and accountability of regional plans and the work of regional development agencies, both in the region and in this House.
	This report builds on substantial work since 1997 to devolve economic decision making to regions and local authorities. It is informed by Sir Michael Lyons' comprehensive review, in which he underlined the important economic role of local authorities as part of defining and delivering a vision for the places that they serve. It is also informed by Kate Barker's recommendations to bring together planning for homes and the environment with planning for economic growth.
	The review takes reform a stage further, giving local authorities stronger incentives and greater powers to support economic growth. As the constitutional Green Paper, which the Prime Minister launched a fortnight ago, said, the sub-national review
	"will signal a shift of focus to local authorities, open up the possibility of powerful city regions and give a clearer role for the regions of England".
	The report also reflects the Prime Minister's vision of a modern democracy, in which power is exercised at the lowest level, and those with power are held more clearly to account.
	Moreover, the reforms are essential as global economic and technological change places an increasing premium on skills, innovation and enterprise. That means that our Government's commitment to increase growth in all regions, reduce regional disparities and deliver neighbourhood renewal will, in future, be all the more challenging and important. It means that further freedoms and devolved decision making are required for regions and local areas: first, to respond to rapid economic change; secondly, to deal with persistent local deprivation or poor economic performance, and thirdly, to enable all places to develop to their fullest potential.
	Our year-long review has been very open—we have visited every region and consulted more than 300 stakeholders at all levels. I can confirm our main conclusions to the House this afternoon. First, to give local authorities greater powers, flexibilities and incentives, we will consult on creating a focused statutory economic duty for local councils; put economic development and neighbourhood renewal at the heart of the new local government performance framework; and consider options for supplementary business rates, working closely with business, local government and other local experts. We will require regional development agencies to delegate funding to local authorities and sub-regions whenever possible so that they play a more strategic role, and we will move funding for most 14 to19-year-olds education and skills to local authorities from the Learning and Skills Council, as announced in the recent machinery of government changes.
	Let me deal with sub-regions. To reinforce our cities and larger towns as the engines of economic growth in their areas and to recognise that labour, housing, retail and other markets often do not correspond to council boundaries, we will allow local authorities that work together in sub-regions to strengthen management of transport; develop proposals for multi-area agreements to encourage groups of local authorities to agree collective targets and pooled budgets for economic development priorities; and work with interested city and sub-regions on scope for statutory sub-regional arrangements, which could allow greater devolution of national and regional economic functions.
	To strengthen, simplify and improve scrutiny of the necessary strategic role of regions, we will combine the regional economic strategy and regional spatial strategy into a single integrated regional strategy. Following consultation, we will bring together the economic, social and environmental objectives for each region and charge RDAs with executive responsibility to prepare the single regional strategy on behalf of the region. In doing so, they will have a duty to consult widely. They will work closely with local authorities and the first step will be for local authorities to set out a vision for the sustainable development of their area. Regional assemblies in their current form will no longer exist.
	The spatial and planning aspects of the strategy will continue to form the regional tier of the statutory development plan, which will remain subject to testing through independent examination in public and will be issued as a statutory document as it is currently. We will strengthen the scrutiny and accountability of RDAs, with the House's new regional Select Committees holding RDAs and others to account in Parliament and with local authority leaders holding the RDA to account in the region and approving the regional strategy. We will consult on how best to implement that.
	Finally, at the centre, to improve support and reduce restrictions from central Government we will give the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform single-lead responsibility across Government for performance management of the RDAs and lead responsibility for the regional economic public service agreement; simplify the targets RDAs must meet; and appoint a Minister for each of the regions—we have already done this—to provide a sense of strategic direction to their region and to give citizens a voice at the centre of Government.
	The report sets out the principles and direction for future policy and the consultation that we will undertake on our reforms. Important Government announcements will follow, implementing the Leitch report, the housing Green Paper and the welfare reform Green Paper and, in the autumn, the comprehensive spending review. My statement this afternoon is the start of further reform, not the final word. I commend the report to the House.

John Healey: I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's early remarks, but somewhat taken aback by the latter ones—especially as I consulted a Lib-Dem policy document published a week ago today, which states:
	"We would devolve real power back down to communities and local councils, bring quangos under democratic control and reduce central bureaucracy".
	Perhaps I should have borrowed those words and incorporated them directly into my statement, because that is precisely what our plans are designed to achieve.
	Everyone in every constituency and in every local authority area is concerned about more jobs and more homes, particularly for young people, as well as about taking proper account of the local environment and finding ways up front to fund the infrastructure necessary to support such growth and prosperity for the future. It is by bringing plans for those functions together that we stand the greatest chance of achieving that.
	On the environment, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that regional development agencies, which seemed to be the focus of his concern, operate under the legislation that set them up in the first place. They are under a statutory responsibility to pursue sustainable development in the regions. As part of the new arrangements, local authorities will take the first step in the preparation of the new single regional strategy. As I explained earlier, that first step will be to prepare, for their area, their vision of future sustainable development, taking strong account of the needs, pressures and concerns of the environment.
	On the question of Ministers, may I gently explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has appointed some first-rate female as well male regional Ministers, so it is not just a male preserve? If I know anything about my good friends and colleagues who are now the regional Ministers, it is that they will not take their cue from anyone in particular. They will consult and listen carefully, but they will come to their own views and make their own contributions to the debate about what is best for their regions.
	Finally, to be as clear as possible, the proposals set out in this afternoon's review do not apply to London, which has its own arrangements on economic policy planning and its own arrangements for democratic control. The regional strategies are, of course, precisely that: they are strategies for the region. If the hon. Gentleman looked into existing regional economic development strategies, he would find that in many cases they place at their centre the cities and sub-regions that are driving economic growth and prosperity within the wider region, creating new jobs and bringing in new investment. That is precisely what this afternoon's proposals are designed to reinforce.

John Healey: Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was perhaps the principal architect of early moves to devolve economic policy making to the regions. Indeed, he steered through this House the legislation that set up the regional development agencies. He played an important role during his years in Government, and I am glad that he welcomes the further moves that I have announced to devolve more to the regions and local authority areas. If we are able to bring together in a single regional strategy those policies that are currently produced by two different processes and two bodies, often using different bases of information and analysis, we will have the basis for a strong regional vision and strategy that allows us to address at the one and the same time policies on jobs, homes, investment in infrastructure and protection of the environment.
	We will also have the basis for achieving what my right hon. Friend continues to want: stronger partnerships at regional and local level and a better alignment of central Government and departmental spending that can help economic development and regeneration through the learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus, the new homes agency, the Highways Agency and also the Environment Agency.

John Healey: Quite simply, if matters are left at local authority level, there will be concern about equity across regions. As well as that, some projects and priorities need to reach beyond local authority boundaries to foster strategic development in terms of jobs, homes or infrastructure. That is the simple answer, and I hope that he will accept the relevance and importance of some regional level functions. I hope that he will also accept that that is combined with a clear expectation and requirement for RDAs to devolve the funding to local authorities and sub-regions wherever possible and, by doing that, to reinforce the hand of local authorities to play, for the first time, a greater role in shaping the economy and prospects for their people in their area in the future.

Richard Burden: The statement has many welcome aspects and I certainly look forward to further discussions in relation to the accountability arrangements for RDAs. When my right hon. Friend talks about the welcome new flexibilities for local authorities, both joined together and on their own, will he address the fact that some of the bigger local authorities at city level, while important as a powerhouse for the region, can be remote from local areas? It will be vital for such authorities to be encouraged to devolve what powers they can internally inside the area, so that community regeneration may accompany economic regeneration.

Graham Stringer: I welcome the abolition of regional assemblies and the transfer of powers and resources to local democracy, but I remind my right hon. Friend that almost all the powers and resources of the scores of regional bodies came originally from local government. Would not it make sense to go the whole hog and abolish all the regional quangos and thus empower the electorate instead of other parts of the quango state?

John Healey: Cornwall still faces some significant economic challenges. It has been greatly transformed by the objective 1 funding that it has received, and by some of the measures that the South West regional development agency has put in place. I take the hon. Gentleman's comments as another late representation to be considered as part of my work on local government restructuring.

Gwyn Prosser: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement, and his announcement that the regional assemblies will be abandoned. I am especially pleased that the South East regional assembly will go, as it never understood housing policy or the needs of the east Kent ports such as Dover and Deal. Does he agree that the new devolved structure will reach out to such areas and allow the voices of deprived parts of Kent to be heard? In the past, they have been drowned out by the prosperity of the wider region.

Clive Betts: I welcome the generality of my hon. Friend's statement, especially the enhanced powers for local authorities in 14-to-19 provision and in economic development, and the flexibility in allowing city regions to develop at their own pace, which is very important. As well as extra powers for local authorities, will he also consider extra mechanisms to enable economic development to take place, and especially, as recommended by the all-party group on urban development, enhancing the ability to enter into public-private partnerships and to use tax increment funding whereby future income streams can be brought forward to enable capital infrastructure to be put in at an earlier date?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Will Members who are not staying for this debate please leave as quickly and quietly as possible? Thank you.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for coming to the House to make her statement today. I certainly welcome the sentiment behind what she has said, and I look forward to working constructively with her, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did with the Minister's predecessor, to improve the lives of women in Britain. However, I am disappointed by the lack of ambition that has been shown in an area where there is still so much to be achieved. Will she confirm that not a single part of today's statement is a new policy? I have to ask why, after 10 years in power, the Minister is only launching a consultation on the important issues that were mentioned.
	We live in a time of rapid social and economic change. Even in the 10 years since 1997, the workplace and the world beyond it have changed remarkably. Government policy relating to women has to keep pace with that change, but it has not always done so. The issues confronting women are diverse and complex, so instead of having a one-size-fits-all idea of how women should lead their lives, Ministers must pursue a policy based on choice for women who are free and empowered to make their own decisions.
	The right hon. and learned Lady said that she would focus on helping families, tackling violence against women, and empowering women in black and minority ethnic communities. Those are laudable aims, and when she comes up with new policies, we will support her if she gets them right, but as usual, the rhetoric exceeded the reality by some distance. She said "the Government have already delivered to ensure that all families have real choices", but what about the 90 per cent. of families who use a relative or neighbour to care for a child? They do not get the support that is available to those who use Government-approved child care. What about women's pensions? One in four single women pensioners lives in poverty, yet the Minister did not even mention pensions in her statement.
	The Minister said that she will be "pressing forward with the Government's commitment to tackle the pay gap", but that implies that the Government are already making progress, but they are not: women who work full time earn 17 per cent. less than men. Does she accept that progress on equal pay has stalled? She mentioned violence against women. The Government have indeed acted on the issue of domestic violence, but does she agree that we need further action—and, I suggest, a change to police attitudes—on stalking, an issue on which the Government have so far done little? The Minister said, "We have done a great deal to step up action against...human trafficking". The Government signed up to the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, but it still has not been ratified. In questions to the Minister for Women on the 5 July, I asked when it would be ratified and what specific policy changes have been made as a result of signing the convention. The right hon. and learned Lady did not answer. Will she do so now?
	The Minister said that she will work with the Justice Secretary to address problems with women in prisons. We know his answer to problems in prisons—he tends to let people out—but the crisis caused by the lack of prison capacity exacerbates the problems experienced by female prisoners. In the outside world, women are three times less likely than men to commit suicide; in prison, they are twice as likely to do so. Women prisoners are twice as likely as men to be held more than 50 miles from home. How can the right hon. and learned Lady reconcile the hope of improving the lot of female prisoners with the reality of overcrowded jails?
	Today's statement betrays the problem behind the Government's approach to women's issues—a problem that goes all the way back to 1997. While some changes are indeed welcome, there is no coherent philosophy or joined-up strategy that underpins that policy. That needs to change. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Lady has set out priorities for women today, but I do not welcome the fact that there is so little substance in her statement. Women of all types and in all circumstances—mothers with children who are juggling their work-life balance, women in pensioner poverty, and vulnerable women—are looking to her for more than fine words. When she returns to the House to make her next statement on women's issues, we expect substance, not style.

Jo Swinson: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for the courtesy of allowing me prior sight of the statement. I take the opportunity to welcome her to her position. She has an impressive track record of working on women's issues, and I hope that in Government she will be a strong advocate for women on a wide range of issues.
	In the statement, the right hon. and learned Lady rightly put support for families up front. One of the biggest challenges facing women is balancing their family responsibilities and their work commitments, although that is an issue for men as well. We should not pigeon-hole it as a women's issue. Indeed, we will probably be able to conquer the problems only when men, too, are engaged with the changes that are required.
	On the pay gap, the figures have already been quoted—12.6 per cent. for full-time work and 40 per cent. for part-time work, and we need to do more to reduce the gap. Will the Minister consider extending equal pay audits to the private sector? On flexible working, the paper published today alongside the statement says that the Government are considering extending flexible working to parents of older children. Does that mean up to the age of 18? Will the Minister go further and accept that extending to all the right to request flexible working would help to change our working culture and reduce some of the resentment that can be created when some colleagues have an opportunity to request flexibility and others cannot?
	Clearly, affordable child care is an important part of that, and I welcome the Government's moves to make child care more affordable. Are new resources being announced to facilitate that? If not, how does the Minister expect that that will be achieved?
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the part that was missing from the families section of the statement concerned women's pensions. Later today we will debate the Pensions Bill. Although there are some welcome improvements for women who have taken time out to care for families, they will be applied only after 6 April 2010. The difference that that will make to women who reach pension age the day before is that they will lose out on £27,000-worth of pension entitlements. I urge the Minister to comment on whether she thinks that is fair. If we are really going to be fair to women on pensions, surely it is time that the Government went one step further and based pensions on residency rather than national insurance contributions, because even under the new plans women with fewer than 30 years of NICs will not be entitled to a full pension.
	On violence against women, it is welcome that a lot of cross-Government working is planned. The End Violence Against Women campaign has been scoring the Government in this respect. They got one out of 10 in 2005 and two out of 10 in 2006, so I hope that the trend is on the up. I hope that this will lead to better cross-departmental working, because that is what the campaign says has been missing, although individual strategies have been in place, for example on domestic violence. What steps will the Minister take to create an integrated strategy involving all Departments to tackle violence against women, instead of a piecemeal approach?
	The moves on women in prison are welcome. We will of course scrutinise the Government on delivery and the action that is taken. However, given that four out of five women prisoners have a mental illness, it is urgent that the situation is tackled, and we will give the Government support in doing so.
	On trafficking, it is welcome that the Government have now signed the European convention against trafficking in human beings and is planning the new legislation that is needed to implement the actions necessary to deal with the problem. The advertisements that the Minister read out from the newspaper will have been shocking and horrific to us all. However, while all these things are being put in place, it would be helpful for the House to have some idea of roughly when we can expect the convention to be ratified.
	It is well documented that black and Asian women in communities across the UK suffer more discrimination than white women or black and Asian men, so that is clearly an important issue for the Government to tackle. However, the Commission for Racial Equality recently expressed disappointment about the discrimination law review and is concerned that there may be proposals to wrap the equality duties into one single duty that ends up being weaker. What reassurance can the Minister give that new proposals to simplify existing equality legislation will not result in a rolling back or weakening of the current race and gender equality duties?

John Bercow: I warmly welcome the right hon. and learned Lady's priorities for women in public policy, but they must be reflected in such priorities in the work of the House. Given that she is both Minister for Women and Leader of the House, will she conduct an urgent conversation with herself and then agree with me that it is monstrous discrimination against her that she is allowed to answer oral questions for only 10 minutes a month, that the time should be at least be tripled, and that, given that she is Minister for Women, it is only right and proper that, in 2007, we should have a Select Committee on women's issues?

Ann Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the Government's commitment to dealing with issues of concern to women. Will she also press local authorities that are drawing up local social care plans to take into account the needs of women caring for elderly relatives? Those women's needs often go unrecognised.

Harriet Harman: When the hon. Gentleman's own party was in government, it had a spokesperson for women who was quite often a man— [ Interruption. ] The Minister for Women in the previous Tory Government was often a man. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that women are still under-represented in the House of Commons. Indeed, there are still only 17 Conservative women Members of Parliament. To the extent that they are ensuring that he enters the 21st century, we will back them up.

Charlotte Atkins: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. What steps will be taken to build on the excellent work of the Sure Start schemes, some of whose funding is coming to an end? They have transformed the lives of many vulnerable young children, and their mothers, in my constituency, particularly in Leek and Biddulph. They have done a tremendous amount of valuable outreach work and developed excellent children's centres, creating a real legacy for the future.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Last summer, I spent a considerable amount of time with the Wolverhampton police domestic violence unit, which expressed real frustration with the problems it faces in getting women who are domestically abused actually to take legal action against their abusers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to incorporate the suggestions and ideas of groups like the police—and, indeed, the voluntary sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) mentioned—in the formulation of her cross-ministerial policy?

Philip Hollobone: In demonstrating the seriousness with which the right hon. and learned Lady takes her role and acknowledging the importance of fair treatment for women in work, will the Minister for Women liaise with the Financial Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for prisons to stop the proposed closures of the tax offices in Kettering and the Prison Service office at Crown house in Corby? The work force at those places is overwhelmingly female, with women often working part time and having child care responsibilities. In my view, the proposed closures of those offices are completely discriminatory. If the Minister for Women means what she says, those closures should be stopped.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the work she did as Solicitor-General for bereaved families—the Mullane family in my constituency, for example—after women have been killed through domestic violence. Is she aware of the excellent work done by the Wiltshire police, who have made domestic violence a priority, particularly by opening a domestic violence treatment centre in north Swindon? What discussions has she had with ministerial colleagues across Government to enable the lessons from such centres to be learned?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I welcome the statement, and was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend mention the Corston report and the need to implement its recommendations. Can she confirm that it will be a priority for her office to improve the services available to women when they leave prison and that, crucially, they will be available at the point of release to help prevent reoffending and women falling back into the abusive relationships that often led them to prison in the first place?

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to say a little more, if he wishes to intervene later I will happily give way to him then.
	The interim findings of the Young review strongly suggest that by making better use of assets within failed pension schemes we will be able to go beyond 80 per cent., and I am confident that we will be able to do so.
	Our response to the interim findings constitutes part of our ongoing reconsideration of the ombudsman's first recommendations. As part of that ongoing reconsideration, I am delighted to be able to announce that the interim findings have persuaded us that more money can be made available. The findings of the asset review do not show that some more money should not be made available.
	The Government believe that the cost of extending the FAS towards the 90 per cent. mark can now be met by making better use of the assets remaining in pension schemes, matched by a further contribution from the Government. To achieve that, we will need the co-operation of every pension scheme. The commitment that we are announcing today is to match the extra funds that the review identifies with the goal of moving towards 90 per cent. of expected core pension for all recipients.
	Those extra funds will be based on the amount of assets remaining in schemes. Trustees must continue to act in their members' best interests, but we hope that they will now take the view that those interests might not be served by expending scheme assets on annuities. The Government will match the extra funds that the Young review identifies as and when they are released by trustees, and we expect that to be achieved as quickly as possible. We will write to trustees of the schemes concerned later this week to explain our proposals in more detail and to urge them to co-operate with us in getting a better outcome for all members.
	I hope that that commitment will convince the House that the Government's intentions are genuine and that this group of costly, complex and contradictory amendments should not be supported. They could involve significant undefined Government spending and damage our ability to help those who most need it.

Mike O'Brien: I am being encouraged to embarrass the Opposition, but the Young review debunks the Conservative myth about pensions. Those involved in that review are continuing to look at the question of unclaimed assets, because that is what some people—including Opposition Members—have suggested. They do not think that that approach will lead anywhere, but they do believe that some of the assets in current pension funds should be aggregated. If those assets could be sweated more efficiently, and combined so that annuities could be purchased in bulk, they believe that more money will be raised than was anticipated under the previous proposals.

Mike O'Brien: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the report by Andrew Young. It bears reading through. It is complex, and involves a lot of issues, but the key point that it raises is that if one were able to bring together the assets in the various failed pension schemes, that would give one a greater purchasing power in terms of the market. If one were able to go out and put those assets into another annuity—a single annuity or a small number of annuities—that would increase the purchasing power of the amount of resources that were there.
	I am dealing with a report by the deputy Government Actuary, who knows his business. To some extent, we have to proceed on an evidence basis and the evidence that Andrew Young came up with, after talking to a large number of people in the industry, shows that it is possible to do more than we thought. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism, but if he asking me whether I can guarantee that all this can be done, I have to say that all I am relying on at the moment is that the Young review has done a considerable amount of work—it seems a very good job to me—and I hope that we will be able to get a genuine response from that.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. As I have already indicated, we will suggest to the trustees of pension funds, who have their own legal obligation and will need to take their own legal advice, that they need to look carefully at this matter. If it is the case that bulking up the various funds would enable us better to bulk purchase annuities, that would on the face of it appear to be better for the members, and the trustees have to take that into consideration. In the end, we are going to have rely on trustees to look at the facts, examine their fiduciary duty to their members and ensure that they make the right judgment. The important thing is that the Bill moves to Royal Assent, so that we can increase the level of initial payments, meaning that more people will benefit immediately. Those are tangible commitments by the taxpayer that will make a real difference to people's lives.
	Amendment No. 24 is about the FAS being at Pension Protection Fund levels. The amendment does not disguise extra public spending as a lifeboat fund or pretend that unclaimed assets could get close to covering the costs. I admire its honesty, while questioning its effect. We estimate that moving from 80 per cent. on the FAS to PPF levels just like that would cost the taxpayer £2.7 billion, or £640 million, net present value. The cost would be low at first, but then rise rapidly as more people retired.

Nigel Waterson: I welcome the Minister to our debates on the Bill. It might have helped if he had read the Young report and our amendments properly, but he is new to the job, so I shall try to help him. He spoke for nearly 40 minutes, and we have a total of only three hours to debate all the groups of amendments, so I shall try to do better than him. The next group of amendments is important to many people, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, and it would be great shame if it was not possible to debate it, particularly as we have just heard a statement about priorities for women. It would show a very odd sense of priorities if the Government did not want to have time to debate the second group of amendments.

Nigel Waterson: I am sure that is right. I appreciate that it is not for the hon. Gentleman's Committee to make such judgments.
	The centrepiece of the Minister's speech tonight—the lifeboat towards which he has been swimming for most of the evening so far, but making little progress—has been the Young report. I agree that it is a useful document, as far as it goes. It is, of course, an interim report and seems to have been rushed out in an attempt by Ministers to bolster their position on the Bill. There is clearly more work to be done by Mr. Young and his colleagues, and I think he accepts that. My overall mark so far is six out of 10—must try harder.
	We welcome parts of the report. It is correct to conclude that the funds available for the victims can be boosted by not purchasing bulk annuities. That is not rocket science. We have been saying that for quite a long time and campaigners like Ros Altmann for even longer, yet Ministers have taken no notice at all. I am pleased to see that in their response to the Young report, Ministers have finally seen the light. But there is a massive danger that faces us this evening. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) touched on it in her intervention. It explains why, forgetting all other arguments for and against, hon. Members in all parts of the House must support the amendments tonight.
	As wind-ups of schemes proceed, many of the assets identified by Young could be dissipated by purchasing annuities in bulk before the review team produces its final report at year's end. We must not allow that to happen, or much of this will become academic. That is the aim of amendment No. 22.

Nigel Waterson: I can assure the Minister that I am not going to do what he did, which was to just to pick out the bits of Young that helped his case and leave the rest. I will deal with that aspect in detail later, and if the Minister feels that I have fallen short he is welcome to intervene again.
	It is a tragic lost opportunity that the Government have been so slow to consider unclaimed assets as a source for topping up assistance to the victims. We raised that during the passage of the Pensions Act 2004; the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had raised it much earlier. The mantra from the Treasury at that time was always the same: "Just because these assets are unclaimed does not mean that they do not belong to somebody." Then suddenly the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, turned 180° and announced that he would be looking to use unclaimed assets, albeit for a different purpose.
	The Government have made much mischief on this subject. They have sought to rely heavily on some comments—now overtaken by events—from their new best friends, the Association of British Insurers, attacking the possible use of trust-based pension assets. For the record, we accept what the ABI says on that specific category, but—this may be helpful to the Minister—nowhere in our amendments on the lifeboat fund do we seek to specify which unclaimed assets could be appropriate for this purpose. That would be left to regulation and to the Secretary of State, and, arguably, to the final Young report. No doubt that makes organisations such as the ABI somewhat uncomfortable. I can understand that, because its job is to look after the interests of the companies who are its members. However, that does not alter the fact that in different ways, and for varying purposes, both Government and Opposition are looking to turn unclaimed assets to the benefit of people in our community who need help. I suspect that now the ABI's greater concern is the briefing from Government sources over the weekend suggesting that as part of the ongoing review they were going to look seriously into using the inherited estate of insurance companies—said to amount to some £20 billion.
	The Young report avoids the issue of bank and building society assets because, it says, those are being considered by the Treasury, but we can safely assume, for these purposes, that significant amounts of money are available from those sources. Young goes on to deal with some ideas that have certainly not emanated from us, such as windfall taxes or additional levies on business. Perhaps they came from the Liberal Democrats. With wry amusement, I see that Young concludes that voluntary contributions from business are not
	"a credible source of additional funding".
	We said that when it was mooted by the then Pensions Minister back in 2004. The report dismisses somewhat tersely the use of unclaimed assets held by National Savings and Investments, and we would wish to look at that again as part of the group's ongoing work.

Nigel Waterson: I should like to make a little progress.
	The report goes on to talk of the need for primary legislation to enable unclaimed assets to be utilised. We now know, fortuitously, that the Government intend to introduce an unclaimed assets Bill, for the Prime Minister has told us so. Should the amendments fail in due course, that would be a golden opportunity to remedy the situation. Perhaps the Minister could deal with that when he responds. We are heartened that the report concludes:
	"there may be additional funds available in further types of unclaimed assets and the Review team will investigate these further before our final report is produced."
	The Minister is wrong to say that the interim report closes the door on the use of unclaimed assets. I note that the review team is intending to continue to investigate the legal and other issues surrounding unclaimed assets, although they reach some provisional conclusions on unclaimed defined benefit scheme assets and so-called orphan assets. Like the Government, we shall consider the implications of those provisional findings. For those who favour the use of unclaimed assets, there is real encouragement in the report—the Minister clearly did not get as far as annexe E—as regards the experience in the Republic of Ireland. A comparison with what it achieved scaled up for our larger population suggests that we might generate £234 million in the first year and £70 million a year thereafter. The report is a good start to the process, and we are told that the final version will appear before the end of this year.
	In fact, however, this is all beside the point. I had harboured hopes, based on my respect for the new Secretary of State and the new Pensions Minister, that they would come to these issues with fresh minds. The history of the FAS since its birth in May 2004 has been a dismal disappointment. Things have merely gone from bad to worse. In its annual report, it revealed that it spent more on running itself then it got to the victims. The latest number receiving payments—about 1,300—is only a fraction of the 10,000 who have reached retirement age and need help now.
	Let us consider the appalling case of Mr. John Brooks, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been deeply involved in his case. Mr. Brooks is 68 and suffers from leukaemia. He worked for 38 years for Early's blanket factory in Witney, but when the business collapsed in 2002 he was left without a company pension. He is one of about 50 people in the same situation. He was recently contacted by the FAS, which offered him 60 per cent. of his full pension in the form, at least initially, of a loan. He said that he would not accept it because he wanted to know if the other 49 people were being offered the same thing. He then got a phone call from someone at the FAS. What he said is quoted in the  Oxford Mail:
	"I asked him if anyone else from Early's was being offered money and he said no, you are the squeaky wheel that we have got to grease."
	That sums up not only the gross incompetence of the FAS, but its lack of any kind of moral status in carrying out the proper compensation of these victims.
	There are others, such as the Cheshires. Marlene Cheshire, the widow of David Cheshire, contributed to the Dexion scheme for 30 years. He died of cancer in 2005. He could have taken early retirement, instead of retiring at the normal age of 62. His widow will receive just £56.98 a week from the FAS, but he would have expected her to receive an estimated £113, including indexing. Mr. Andrew Parr, a member of the ASW Sheerness scheme, will receive 40 per cent. of his expected pension from the FAS. At the age of 62, he should have been getting £336.96 a week—he will now be getting just £134 a week, and he is still working despite having a heart problem.
	It is not just a matter of statistics, but of real people facing real problems. When will Ministers understand that those people and their families need help now? The niceties and technicalities of sorting out underutilised remaining assets in the funds, non-purchase of annuities and unclaimed assets will take time; we accept that. However, if the Government had listened to us, that could all have been happening during the past two or three years. It is precisely because the process will take time, and because those families need help now, that along with other parties and some Labour Members, we are proposing not just a lifeboat fund but also that initial funding should be provided through Treasury loans. Those would be repaid in due course and are based on the way in which the Maxwell victims were treated.

Frank Field: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask you a rhetorical question? Are you, like me, visited by the odd nightmare? That nightmare is one in which one knows the right course of action, but is paralysed to take it. All of a sudden, one wakes up and finds oneself back in the real world. Listening to what was said from our Front Bench today, the comparison with being paralysed and unable to take the right action seemed to be there. The nightmare, however, is visited not on us, but on those of our constituents who have paid into an occupational pension for most, if not all, of their working lives, and have been to robbed of that to some degree—sometimes to a great degree.
	Let me remind the House of the background to this matter. In 2002, I introduced a Bill that had two parts. One was to establish an insurance scheme, and one was to deal with what we then thought were small numbers of people who could not be insured because their schemes had already gone bankrupt, or would do so before the insurance scheme came into existence. I proposed that taxpayers should not have to foot a penny of the bill of making good the pensions of those in the second group, and that we should draw upon the unclaimed assets of banks and building societies.
	What was the Treasury's response to that? It told us that, although these assets were unclaimed, it did not mean that they did not have owners. The Treasury was not minded to claim such assets, which sometimes were unclaimed for 100 years or more, to foot the pension bill of those who had so cruelly lost out. We now know that the Treasury says not only that the assets will be claimed by the Government, even though they are unclaimed and may have owners, but that pensioners will not have the first claim on them, as first mentioned in this House. Instead, the assets will be used for youth projects. It is not that anyone in the House is against financing youth projects, but we think—as Aneurin Bevan said—that politics is about priorities, and when it comes to priorities, pensioners should be at the top of the list.
	The Minister for Pensions Reform is one of our most adroit performers at the Dispatch Box, but at the end of his contribution, I was left wondering what we were offering pensioners. All I knew was that we were not offering them the deal that we should be. Tonight, we should take the opportunity to put an end to the nightmare into which they have been plunged for many a long year. Those on the Treasury Bench know that we have by-elections coming up. Lots of Members on this side of the House, who agree with us in spirit, will not want to be with us in the Lobby because they know that some Opposition Members would exploit that in by-election campaigns.
	I hope that Members of the House of Lords would not misread a vote as a lack of determination on this side of the House. When our deliberations return to them, I hope that they maintain their position, and keep sending the measure back to us until we reach the final tape. At that point, the Government will have to give way, if they have not already done so, and we will get justice, at long last, for those pensioners who have been so cruelly treated by the circumstances regarding their pensions funds. All of a sudden, the light of day will then be upon the Government, and they will realise that the funds can be found from somewhere. We might as well do that tonight rather than later on in the Session. We owe that to our constituents, and I hope that we shall vote accordingly tonight.

Danny Alexander: I was struck by the—probably uncharacteristic— partisan tone struck by the Minister in his opening remarks. There has been a lot of talk about building a pensions consensus during the debates on pensions that many of us have been involved in. During this debate, the House has to think about the cross-party interest of many hon. Members in ensuring that the 125,000 victims of the collapsed pensions, to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred, have a fair and just settlement. We have an opportunity tonight to ensure that they do, and to ensure that the paralysis, quite rightly described by the right hon. Gentleman, stops and the nightmare for those 125,000 people is brought to an end. Let us ensure that those people are not presented with continuing injustice and a continuing struggle.
	Let us not forget that what has brought the matter most vividly to the House's attention for a period of years was vigorous campaigning. We saw it again today, as many of the victims of collapsed occupational pensions were present in Parliament square, to lobby Members of this House about the justness and fairness of their cause. Let us not say to those people, "You have to keep struggling on." Let us back the amendments and make sure that those people have the fair and just settlement that they seek, and which they deserve. That settlement is embodied by the amendments, including amendment No. 24, which I shall come to shortly.
	The background to the matter is well known. As the right hon. Gentleman said, many people have been affected during the period between the suggestion of such legislation and its coming into law. The Government's role in the whole sorry scheme has been criticised by several independent bodies, such as the European Court of Justice, the High Court, the pensions ombudsman and the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If a footballer had been shown four red cards in succession, the police would be called to get him off the pitch. The Government need to respond with more alacrity to those findings than they have displayed so far.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right. "Action this day" must govern us. It is not enough to delay a little more and simply take the Government's word. The Select Committee gave cautious advice about the extent to which we should listen to the Government. We need to act now because, tomorrow, the amount that has been annuitised may be greater. The next day, it may be greater still. We need to act to ensure that that does not happen and that the maximum amount of resources is available to benefit those who have suffered so long because of the collapse of their occupational pension.
	The Young review makes the point—perhaps it is a rebuttal to the Association of British Insurers, among others—that there are unclaimed assets potentially available in life insurance policies. However, the main point the review makes is that there is a need to create the lifeboat now. People need the guarantee of the benefits at PPF level. The Minister can have a review to ascertain the level of resources, but let us get the lifeboat going to give people outside the certainty that they require.
	Amendment No. 24 is simple and makes it clear that PPF-level benefits should be delivered by regulation as a matter of right. The other amendments make it clear that the process of allocating resources should be gone through, but the uncertainty of the level of resources that might be delivered by the various programmes should not stop us voting for these amendments. There may be a small cost attached—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has referred to it repeatedly, from a sedentary position and otherwise—but answers to parliamentary questions show that it is not great. Let us float that lifeboat now to give hope to all concerned.
	The Minister presented his statement as an attempt to offer progress but it amounted to little more than more dithering and delay. Victims of this scandal cannot wait and, with the exception of those to whom the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred who have sadly passed away, will not go away. They will knock at our door every day they can. That is another reason why the House should act today. The amendments establish the lifeboat and start the search for the resources to fund it. That is the right order in which to do it. Let us not spend weeks, months or years reviewing the assets that might be available before we decide to float the lifeboat and give the guarantee of the appropriate level of benefits. Let us vote for the amendments tonight.
	The Prime Minister has made clear his wish to present an ethical dimension to his Government's domestic policy. What better way to start than to ensure that the amendments are passed tonight and that the victims of collapsed occupational pensions in the FAS get the levels of benefits that they desire? The Prime Minister has also made it clear that he wishes to restore the role of Parliament. What better way could there be for the House to show that if the Government are not willing to provide that ethical dimension to their domestic policies, then it is? I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Julie Kirkbride: I am particularly honoured to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who is Chairman of the Administration Committee. His argument about the moral imperative to do something for pensioners who have lost their pensions through no fault of their own is, along with his other arguments, absolutely right. I do not intend to take up too much of the House's time, because as hon. Members will know there is other business in this group of amendments that is also important, particularly to women. It would therefore be helpful to conclude these arguments quickly.
	However, I have a particularly good example from my constituency of the injustice of the current arrangements. I represent two groups of people who have lost their pensions: those scheme members who worked for United Engineering Forgings, the old steel company that collapsed before the Pension Protection Fund came into being, and who therefore have to rely on inadequate compensation from the financial assistance scheme; and the people who used to work for the old Rover car company. Although they lost their jobs in the collapse of that company, mercifully that happened days after the Pension Protection Fund came into being, so they were not in the appalling situation of losing both their jobs and the pension contributions that they had made over the years working for that company.
	There are other companies that I might mention, such as Kalamazoo. It would be helpful to put on the record my appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Peter Wheeler from Kalamazoo, who has been one of the major campaigners in getting the Opposition and Government Members focused on the issue, as well as the Government. There is also Turner and Newall, which is another company in our region whose employees have included constituents of mine who have lost their pension provision.
	The situation is simple. Those people did absolutely the right thing. They did what society asked of them, what their families asked of them and what the Government could ask of them. Those people sought to look after themselves by forgoing income that they could have spent today, in order to look after themselves and their families in the future. In that sense, the House surely owes it to them to put together a scheme that compensates them for doing what we could ask of them, but which many others do not do. We have a moral imperative to try to protect those people in their predicament, now that they have lost their pension savings.
	That is particularly urgent, given that many of the people who have lost their pensions and who look to the financial assistance scheme have either died while waiting for the money to be forthcoming or become much more ill or retired, while remaining in a penurious position. It is simply not fair that that group of 125,000 people, whose numbers will not grow, because of the existence of the Pension Protection Fund, should find themselves in the particularly injurious position of not being properly compensated for the pension savings that they made in the past being lost.
	The words of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were particularly accurate. The Government could have done something about the problem years ago and saved people from that predicament because they had the assets of banks and building societies, which they could have plundered to protect those people and offer them compensation. However, the Government made a distinct decision to spend that money on something else. Although provision for young people in our communities is welcome, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the priority should have been those people who had done the right things by themselves and society. They deserved to be compensated.
	It is not good enough for the Government to um and ah, and to keep giving the House a little bit more, in an attempt to buy off any opposition to their plans. They could have dealt with the situation some years ago, but they chose not to do so. However, the House will not let the issue go. I applaud the willingness of Labour Members to put the issue on the table and say that the Government must come forward with proper compensation that matches the protection offered by the Pension Protection Fund, because that is the right thing to do.
	I agree with Opposition Members in general that the urgency of the current situation is paramount. We must prevent the £1.3 billion that has been itemised in the Government-commissioned report from being made into annuities, by passing a law in the House today. We must also force the Government's hand into looking again at offering full compensation, whether through the lifeboat fund or through an alternative scheme that the Government have in mind. Frankly, it does not matter to my constituents; what matters to them is seeing justice done. The justice that is acceptable is to have parity with the Pension Protection Fund. I urge the Minister to listen to the pleas of the House and do just that.

Julie Morgan: I had hoped that the Government would bring this sad series of events to an end this evening by making a real commitment to the pensioners. I am disappointed that, so far, that has not happened. I accept that progress has been made and I welcome what my right hon. Friend said today. We are creeping nearer to the 90 per cent. figure, but as many hon. Members have said this evening, what does it actually mean? We have heard about other benefits related to the Pension Protection Fund. I cannot understand why the Government will not go that extra step and make a proper commitment.
	It was five years ago that Allied Steel and Wire went into receivership in Cardiff, so this saga has been going on for five long years, during which time I and other hon. Members have had people coming back and forth to our constituency surgeries, saying time and again that they expected a Labour Government to sort the problem out. I feel that the Government have made some efforts and achieved some progress, but they have not gone as far as they should.
	Many people have campaigned long and hard on this issue and I know that many will be disappointed that the Government will not finally settle it today. We must pay tribute to the pensioners themselves and to the unions, particularly to Community and Amicus, which took the case to the European Court of Justice in the interest of its members in January 2006. The ruling said that the pension rules were inadequate in protecting the expected pensions of members of occupational pension schemes in the event of their employers becoming insolvent. If those rules had been implemented adequately, none of this would have happened. I still hope that we can settle the issue, but time is certainly running out. It is time that we did the right thing by all those affected—and some of the Lords amendments would achieve that, though I did not wish to reach the position where I felt I would have to support some of their amendments against the Government.
	What guides me at this particular moment is the experience of my constituents in Cardiff, North, particularly ex-employees of Allied Steel and Wire. What they have told me has driven me to campaign for justice for those workers. I have seen for myself just what hardship the loss of their pensions has caused. We have all heard first hand just how hard it was for people to learn that they were going to lose first their jobs and then their pensions, despite having paid into an occupational pension scheme—often for decades and on the advice of the Government.
	Many of those people worked in the hard environment of the steel industry for all their lives and many have told me about the devastating impact of these events. One man put it very bluntly when he said, "I face a bleak retirement", yet he had paid into a pension scheme for more than 20 years. Some people have never been able to talk about what happened to them. I have mentioned before that one man's wife told me that since this happened, he had been unable to say a word about it because the trauma was so great. Some members have died not knowing how much loved ones will have to live on. I do not feel that that can be allowed to go on and on. The excruciatingly long time that it is taking to get justice for all those affected by the collapse of pension schemes has caused untold stress and strain and affected the physical, emotional and mental health of many pensioners and their families.
	I welcome what the Minister has proposed tonight, but it still continues the uncertainty. We still do not know what extra percentage will result from the proposals in the Young review. We still do not know how much the final figure will be when the Government match that percentage. My constituents tell me that the stress and uncertainty have gone on far too long and they urge us to bring this sad, appalling and morally wrong situation to a satisfactory conclusion.
	The Young report offers some hope, but I fear that we still do not know what it will mean for those pensioners. If the Government offer no certainty today, I feel that I must consider voting in favour of any amendments that will result in payments at PPF levels for my constituents who are currently in receipt of FAS. I support the intention behind amendment No. 24, which is a simple amendment that aims to bring pensions up to PPF levels. I hope that we will have a separate vote on that amendment. I am reflecting on the other amendments and support my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), the esteemed Chair of the Public Administration Committee, when he said that it would have been preferable not to have gone down the route of loans and lifeboats. It would have been better to have had a straight commitment from the Government and then to have found as much as possible from the sources identified in the Young report. That might have reduced enormously how much public money had to be used. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, sometimes it is necessary to make a commitment to public money, and I believe that this is one of those occasions.
	I very much regret that we, as a Government, have reached this stage today. This is a marvellous Bill, which promises pensioners a much better future and recognises the issue of women's involvement in pensions in a way in which it has not been recognised before. I would support it wholeheartedly were it not for the problems that we are discussing, and I am very disappointed that the Government have not reached a firmer conclusion. Unless the Minister says anything more definite, however, I shall vote for certainty and a better deal for my constituents.

Helen Goodman: As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), said when he introduced the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill is unusual in that it is neither a Government nor a Back-Bench Bill, but a parliamentary Bill, concerned with the machinery of Parliament. The Bill has its origins in the decision of the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee to set up a joint Department to manage information and communications technology on behalf of both Houses.
	We have a tradition in the House of making decisions about the services that we all need in a non-partisan spirit. I am pleased to say that the Bill enjoyed all-party support in the House of Lords, and that was apparent again when the Second Reading debate was taken Upstairs in Second Reading Committee. I am grateful in particular to the hon. Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for their support. I am pleased also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) in his place. I know that as Chairman of the Administration Committee, he has taken a particular interest in parliamentary ICT and in the Bill.
	Clause 1 establishes the key principle that there can be joint Departments of both Houses of Parliament. Although the two Houses have long since shared the building, they have always maintained separate administrations and staff. To some extent that must always be so, because there are occasions when the two Houses take contrary positions on the issues before them and require separate procedural support and advice. In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that it makes sense for the two Houses to share the management of much of our infrastructure. Until now, that has been achieved more or less satisfactorily by one House employing the staff to deliver a particular service and the other agreeing to make an appropriate financial contribution in exchange for a share in the service. For example, the House of Commons has managed the staff who maintain the buildings for both Houses while the House of Lords has managed the staff of the joint parliamentary archives.
	Over the past 20 years, Members of both Houses and the two administrations have become increasingly dependent on ICT services. In response, during the 1990s the two Houses created a combination of joint and separate functions to meet the new requirements. In addition, most of the specialised Departments and offices of the two Houses acquired their own computer applications and staff, all under separate management arrangements. The consequence was that at the beginning of the present decade we had acquired myriad overlapping IT systems and teams. That is why, in 2004, the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee accepted the recommendation from the Clerks of both Houses that there should be a single strategically managed ICT service functioning, for the first time, as a joint Department. It was agreed then that the new service called the parliamentary information and communication technology service—PICT—should be set up on an interim basis.
	As parliamentarians, we all know that our dependency on ICT can only increase—a point tellingly made in the excellent report by the Administration Committee, "Information and communication technology services for members". High-quality ICT services are essential for all members to fulfil their responsibilities to their constituents and in Parliament. That requires careful strategic management on our behalf, and it eminently makes sense for them to be managed on a joint house basis. PICT is already operating in a shadow form, but for the longer term it needs a stable framework for joint employment, which is what the Bill is designed to achieve. Clause 1 therefore establishes the principle of joint Departments, and the remaining clauses flesh out the details.

Helen Goodman: I am sorry. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill sets out a general proposition for joint departments because it took slightly longer to bring forward the measure than would have been the case from a management point of view because of the shortage of parliamentary time. There are no plans for new joint Departments, but if decisions are made later, we will not need to wait for full establishment. I hope that that is satisfactory.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adam Price: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Aldrin Quibuyen, and his family, who are currently subject to a detention and removal order. I am asking the Minister to consider revoking it tonight by using the powers of discretion at his disposal.
	Perhaps I should begin by briefly setting out the facts of the case. Mr. Quibuyen, who is a qualified nurse, entered the UK entirely properly and in accordance with immigration rules in 2003 with a work permit for his employer Craegmoor Healthcare, and was granted leave to remain until 2008. In May 2005, a new work permit application was approved for a change of employment to Caeffair nursing home, but the granting of a new work permit also necessitates a new application for further leave to remain to be lodged within six months. Mr. Quibuyen should have been informed of that by his new employer, but due to a combination of administrative error and some confusion on his part, a new application was not launched for a full 15 months. As a result, Mr. Quibuyen was informed by letter on the 29 November 2006 that his application for further leave to remain had been refused. The reason given was that he had breached his condition of stay by continuing to work for an employer without the required permission. His leave to enter was then curtailed as a result and, as that has now passed, he and his family are being asked to leave the UK as soon as practicable.
	I would like to say at the outset that it is undeniable that Mr. Quibuyen, in failing to submit the proper form within the allotted time, was in breach of the regulations; and the officials acted perfectly reasonably and within the terms of the rules. I have to say, however, that if I had to leave the country every time I forgot to fill in a vital piece of paperwork, I would have been deported many times over the years. It is an easy mistake to make. I think that there is plenty of evidence to prove that in this case that is precisely what it was—an honest mistake. Mr. Quibuyen remained in contact with the authorities throughout his time here, and thought that he was complying with the regulations. When he realised his mistake, he admitted it and sought to rectify it.
	That brings us to the question before us tonight: is the evidence of Mr. Quibuyen's good character and honest intent sufficient basis to warrant the use of ministerial discretion for which the regulations allow? I think that there are good reasons for applying that discretion in this case. First, Mr. Quibuyen is diligent, extremely hard working and much appreciated by his employer, and by the hundreds of people for whom he has cared during the four years he has worked here. If he were a citizen, we would call him an exemplary citizen. For the first two years he managed to sustain himself, sent money home to his family in the Philippines, and saved enough for a deposit on a house so that his family could join him, as they did in December 2004.
	Individuals like Mr. Quibuyen, who work hard, pay their taxes and are never a drain on state resources, are concrete examples of the success of the Government's immigration policy, with its emphasis on managed migration to plug vital skill gaps in particular sectors and local labour markets. We all know that the national health service, and the care sector more widely, could not function as well as they do without the valued contribution of overseas workers in general, and in particular the high quality care provided by nurses from the Philippines.
	The second reason for reconsidering the removal order is the extent to which the family have integrated with the local community in Ammanford. Mr. Quibuyen's daughter, Phebe, was born here, and his son Buzz—Aldrin—is doing very well at school. He has learned Welsh and English, and recently won a spelling award in both languages. The family are part of our community and the people of Ammanford have taken them to their hearts.
	Since December last year, Aldrin and his wife Rhoda have been unable to work or provide for themselves or their family. It is testimony to the high regard in which Aldrin—affectionately known locally as Al—and his family are held that throughout this incredibly difficult time they have been entirely sustained by the financial support of their local church, the Salvation Army and the generosity of ordinary people in Ammanford. I also pay tribute to Carmarthenshire county council, which has been very understanding in dealing with Mr. Quibuyen's council tax arrears. I am grateful to the council for that.
	As I am sure the Minister agrees, that tradition of hospitality and solidarity is the true picture of race relations in this country, and it is something that we should celebrate. The Minister will have seen a petition bearing thousands of names and received hundreds of letters from members of the public asking him and his colleagues to reconsider.
	In the times in which we live, of course it is right and proper for the Government to insist on a tightly policed system of rules governing who can and cannot enter and work in this country, but it is also right for there to be enough flexibility for Ministers to use discretion in cases where there is no deliberate attempt to deceive and a punitive approach would clearly not be in the public interest. In instances like this, in which an honest mistake has been made, such an approach might well send the wrong signal to honest individuals who may merely have delayed submitting the forms. They should be told that if they contact the authorities, it will not necessarily be a case of automatic deportation: there should be flexibility, and each case should rightly be judged on its merits. Sending Mr. Quibuyen and his family back to the Philippines would devastate him financially and emotionally. He would lose everything that he had worked for and his family, already uprooted once, would be uprooted again—all because he had overlooked a form of which, regrettably, he was not sufficiently aware.
	There are good compassionate reasons to reconsider, but also more hard-headed reasons. It is people like Mr. Quibuyen—people of good character who are prepared to work hard and abide by the rules, and whose skills we desperately need—whom we should keep in this country. Like thousands of others who have come from the Philippines and elsewhere, Mr. Quibuyen came here to answer our call for people to plug the skills gap in the health and care sectors. I think that we should honour those people's commitment by treating them fairly and reasonably.
	The Minister is fair minded and he will have had an opportunity to review the full facts of the case. I hope that he will see the merit of some of the arguments I have presented. I appreciate that rules should be observed and enforced, but on this occasion I think that there is cause to think again about what is the appropriate course of action.